History: requantification

Source of version: 1 (current)

from Jboske: la pycyn cusku di'e >(what is the official line on requantifying an already quantified >variable?) The closest thing to an official line is the last section of chapter 16, which does not make sense as far as I can tell The way I interpret requantification is this: The second time a variable is quantified, there is an implicit restriction to the same set to which the variable was restricted the first time. So if the first appearance is {Q1 da poi broda}, and the second appearance is {Q2 da poi brode}, then this last one is equivalent to {Q2 de poi broda zi'e poi brode}. Which quantifier Q1 is plays no role in the second quantification. If Q1 were to play a role (as the Book suggests) then we would have strange consequences, like {su'o da poi broda} and {naku no da poi broda}, which should be equivalent, giving different results for the second quantification mu'o mi'e xorxes See also ((existential requantification)).